RPG/D&D terms and phrases that are no longer clever or amusing.

[hong]

I too must now throw in with the anti-balance people. However, I wish to qualify it. I feel each class and prestige class (at least the ones in your own games) should be equally playable. No point in cutting the legs out from under anyone.

Now then, where I agree is easily summed up this way. A 20th level mage will almost ALWAYS blow a 20th level warrior to kingdom come. You have a mage who controls god-like power, and a guy (or girl) with a piece of steel. Hmm, money on person in robes and stinky stuff in hand.

Handy hint. A 20th level mage will indeed blow away a 20th level warrior who has nothing more than a piece of steel in hand. This is just as true of 3E as it has always been.

Second handy hint. The 760,000 gp of magic bling that 20th level characters get is there for a reason. If you disagree with that reason, just remove the 760,000 gp of magic bling.

Third handy hint. At 20th level, there is no reason to believe that the same tropes that sustain play at low levels still apply. The warrior with nothing but a mundane sword and sheer stubbornness is a low-level and low-power trope, and asking such a character to pull their weight at 20th level is ridiculous. 20th level play requires a readjustment of assumptions, to deal with how the new powers available change gameplay dramatically.

Not that it's hard to find examples in fiction of supernaturally competent warriors. Hercules is the canonical example of the warrior who can do deeds even the gods find impressive. From Celtic mythology there's Cuchulain and lots of others; Slaine is a modern take on this tradition. In Chinese wuxia stories you have swordsmen who can fly and do all sorts of funky powers (the Jedi in Eps 1 and 2 are loosely based on this).

This is how DnD has always been.

Yes, Elmunchkin's paradise. Getting out of the shadow of Gygaxmania is the best thing that 3E ever did.

If the warrior were equal with a mage in a one on one fight, than why take the mage?

You're the one who seems to think that other factors besides balance are more important to the game. Why don't you tell me? Surely if the relative parity of classes was truly unimportant to you, then you'd have plenty of reasons to play a mage, regardless of how well they do in a fight with others. Or by "balance is unimportant", do you really mean that IMbalance is important, ie you're pissed that your overpowered mage actually has some competition now?

The warrior can do it's schtick day in day out, no hassle. A mage has a limited number of spells. Does that fact lineup with balance: no. See, the whole balance thing breaks down. Even more fun.

Have you played any 20th level 3E?

Ugh, I shouldn't have started writing this. Just ignore me.

Okay.

 

[SylverFlame]

To Hong

I am not responding, just saying that instead of saying "ignore me" I'm just not going to post those inane ramble "why did I write this" posts.

 

[Wormwood]

Bring your "balanced" fighter up against my "broken" OAD&D mage and I'll turn him into a black smear on the ground!

Sounds like a compelling argument in favor of game balance to me.

If so, I'm in full agreement.

 

[Bismark]

Pally for Paladin. It's just gotta go.

 

[Numion]

Anyway, three cheers to Gothmog. Whoever came up with the concept of "balance" should be burned at the stake! IMNSHO, the idea of balance has probably turned me off to WoTC's product and d20 in general more than any other single element, including House Rules from Hell (feats)!

Bring your "balanced" fighter up against my "broken" OAD&D mage and I'll turn him into a black smear on the ground!

Balance...bah!

Where did you get the idea that balance would mean that a wizard and a fighter would be equal in a one-on-one arena match? For me balance means that they're both equally useful in a four person party.

Thats the premise of the game, BTW. 4 PCs overcoming challenges. Balanced charaters are equally useful in that environment, not against each other, but on the same side.

 

[Orius]

Where did you get the idea that balance would mean that a wizard and a fighter would be equal in a one-on-one arena match? For me balance means that they're both equally useful in a four person party.

Thats the premise of the game, BTW. 4 PCs overcoming challenges. Balanced charaters are equally useful in that environment, not against each other, but on the same side.

Agreed. Balance isn't about how the individual classes fare against each other, it's about making sure the challenges they face are not too easy or difficult for their level. Teamwork is an important part of the balance equation. That's why balance assumes a party with one each of fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard.

 

[Myris]

Hmmmm...wow...I think I've just realized two very important points:
#1 - I'm waaaaay out of touch with the RPG lingo. I have NO clue what most of the objectional phrases were/are and have never heard them used (exceptions: "newbie", since it's used in more than just RPG; "munchkin", since that was explained to me upon my first RIFTS experience; "rollplaying", which was recently introduced to me).

#2 - I'm guilty of starting (and/or heavily participating in...don't remember which) a "rollplaying" vs. "roleplaying" rant session on my publishing company's email group that lasted for about a week...

Honestly, I didn't know that these terms were so heavily used, lol. I'm more used to the moronic (if not rather amusing) anecdotes rather than lingo (you know...the annoying phrases from games past that ALWAYS seem to be brought up in game, providing hours of useless jabber about how such and such yelled "I pick the Glitterboy up by his boomgun!" before he got splatted...).

And I don't know if anyone else ever uses this, but it's an annoying phrase that started off as an amusing one in my group "Tangent Maaaaaaaan" (chortled to the tune of "Trojan Maaaaaaaan", if you didn't catch the reference. I guess it started off as a deterent for the aforementioned tangent phrases, but now has become just as annoying...

<sigh>

 

[Pants]

And I don't know if anyone else ever uses this, but it's an annoying phrase that started off as an amusing one in my group "Tangent Maaaaaaaan" (chortled to the tune of "Trojan Maaaaaaaan", if you didn't catch the reference. I guess it started off as a deterent for the aforementioned tangent phrases, but now has become just as annoying...

<sigh>

Occasionally, when we (my group and I) get really off tangent, one of my group members will create a Tangent Graph that will showcase just how much we get off target and which topics will cause it. We've ended with such hilarious topics such as 'DBZ,' 'Ass Pony (a congolmeration of stupid discussions),' 'Futurama,' and 'The Simpsons.' There were more, but I can't remember them

 

[Myris]

Most awesome I would LOVE to know the techniques used for the Tangent Graph I usually just start speaking in abnormally large words (or confusing terminology) to "break" the tangent spell

One of my favorites, when asked a question on tangent:
"Not knowing positively, I feel a delicacy in articulating on a subject so dubious to my mental faculties"
Meaning "I don't know"....

It usually breaks the tangent....

 

[SkidAce]

Build......for me it takes away some of the feel of the game to hear..."anyone got any good builds for X character?"...so mechanical...

My brain understands it but my emotions say yuck!

Crunch and Fluff...another one my brain understands but I'm so tired of reviews saying "and it's full of crunchy bits"

Also can't stand when poeple start screaming "Dead Horse" ...might not be dead for the newer people accessing this board...maybe it's a popular topic because it affects so many of us....let's cultivate tolorance.